"
Team:Tuebingen/Notebook/Journal/Weekly
From 2013.igem.org
| Line 676: | Line 676: | ||
<div class="journalWrapper"> <!-- start copy here --> | <div class="journalWrapper"> <!-- start copy here --> | ||
<a name="weekOne"> | <a name="weekOne"> | ||
| - | <h3>Week 1< | + | <h3>Week 1</h3></a> |
<p>We started out our iGEM project with several unsuccessful PCRs of Pfet3. We also tried restriction digests and ligations of Psuc2, rox1, mig1, and the mPRs into pSB1C3– without positive results. Unfortunately, we had massive problems (smiling marker) with staining our gelelectrophoresis gels thus had to start off our project with trouble-shooting. After some experiments we came to the conclusion that post-staining would be an expensive way to solve our gel problems. Due to better gels we could prove the successful PCRs of Panb1 and Psuc2 and promptly started ligation and transformation of these parts. Initial transformations of mig1 were unsuccessful. However, luc PCRs went very well and we already had highest hopes for this part. Unfortunately, we found an illegal restriction site inside of luc thus we had to come up with something special: site-directed-mutagenesis using 3 pairs of primers and Pfu-polymerase. Restricitons of Padh1, Psuc2, rox1, mig1, mPR Dr, mPR Xl and RFP (our initial reporter) went rather well but due to missing negative controls in the control gel further steps were not possible this week.</p> | <p>We started out our iGEM project with several unsuccessful PCRs of Pfet3. We also tried restriction digests and ligations of Psuc2, rox1, mig1, and the mPRs into pSB1C3– without positive results. Unfortunately, we had massive problems (smiling marker) with staining our gelelectrophoresis gels thus had to start off our project with trouble-shooting. After some experiments we came to the conclusion that post-staining would be an expensive way to solve our gel problems. Due to better gels we could prove the successful PCRs of Panb1 and Psuc2 and promptly started ligation and transformation of these parts. Initial transformations of mig1 were unsuccessful. However, luc PCRs went very well and we already had highest hopes for this part. Unfortunately, we found an illegal restriction site inside of luc thus we had to come up with something special: site-directed-mutagenesis using 3 pairs of primers and Pfu-polymerase. Restricitons of Padh1, Psuc2, rox1, mig1, mPR Dr, mPR Xl and RFP (our initial reporter) went rather well but due to missing negative controls in the control gel further steps were not possible this week.</p> | ||
</div> <!-- end copy here --> | </div> <!-- end copy here --> | ||
Revision as of 19:26, 4 October 2013
Week 26
Week 25
Week 24
Week 23
Week 22
Week 21
Week 20
Week 19
Week 18
Week 17
Week 16
Week 15
Week 14
Week 13
Week 12
Week 11
Week 10
Week 9
Week 8
Week 7
Week 6
Week 5
Week 4
Week 3
Week 2
Week 1
We started out our iGEM project with several unsuccessful PCRs of Pfet3. We also tried restriction digests and ligations of Psuc2, rox1, mig1, and the mPRs into pSB1C3– without positive results. Unfortunately, we had massive problems (smiling marker) with staining our gelelectrophoresis gels thus had to start off our project with trouble-shooting. After some experiments we came to the conclusion that post-staining would be an expensive way to solve our gel problems. Due to better gels we could prove the successful PCRs of Panb1 and Psuc2 and promptly started ligation and transformation of these parts. Initial transformations of mig1 were unsuccessful. However, luc PCRs went very well and we already had highest hopes for this part. Unfortunately, we found an illegal restriction site inside of luc thus we had to come up with something special: site-directed-mutagenesis using 3 pairs of primers and Pfu-polymerase. Restricitons of Padh1, Psuc2, rox1, mig1, mPR Dr, mPR Xl and RFP (our initial reporter) went rather well but due to missing negative controls in the control gel further steps were not possible this week.
Back to top
